Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

judgecorp writes "The European Commission is resisting pressure from US firms and public bodies designed to derail its privacy proposals, which include the 'right to be forgotten' that would allow users to demand their data be removed from Internet sites. Facebook and others oppose the right to be forgotten as it would interfere with their ability to market stuff at friends and connections of their users."

Actually, it was in reply to the wife part. It was quite common (especially in France, but also in England and Scotland) for the king or their heir apparent to marry for political alliances but maintain a mistress (in France, sometimes more than one simultaneously). Therefore the Queens/Wives knew about it and were often quite happy with the arrangement. Frequently the mistress was given title, power in the royal court and rather luxurious lodgings. They also were often married themselves. The most famous of these is Jeanne Antoinette Poisson also known as Madame de Pompadour who had a cordial relationship with the queen of France,

Exactly: after all, what is lobbying? No, the nice gentleman from facebook is not trying to buy my vote on this matter. We are simply good friends who like to take lunch together. Only I have a chronic habit of forgetting my wallet, but he's more than happy to foot the bill. He's also quite fond of my wife, and loves to treat her to the occasional gift of exquisite diamonds and spa trips. But it's okay: he never tries to influence my vote. We're just friends.

Exactly: after all, what is lobbying? No, the nice gentleman from facebook is not trying to buy my vote on this matter. We are simply good friends who like to take lunch together. Only I have a chronic habit of forgetting my wallet, but he's more than happy to foot the bill. He's also quite fond of my wife, and loves to treat her to the occasional gift of exquisite diamonds and spa trips. But it's okay: he never tries to influence my vote. We're just friends.

Pure and utter bullshit. Politicians have to declare any interests, and if anything as blatant as this happened, the person responsible would be sacked. Here in the UK there is a huge ongoing fuss about MPs expenses, and that is just people feathering their own nests, not accepting gifts from outsiders. And a few years ago there was the whole Neil Hamilton "cash for questions" fiasco.

You can't judge all public officials by the apparent low standards of US ones.

Wife? The purchasing manager of one large European organisation expected to be provided with an escort for the evening during the monthly contract reviews. And a Japanese company decided that a particular purchasing manager needed to visit their headquarters, which included a week of touring with a nice lady companion.

Unfortunately, somewhat later, he was found out. It was probably not a good idea to mention to the competition that he was open to better offers...

Ernst Strasser, Austrian (former) MEP is just on trial for offering to sell his influence for EUR 100.000,-
Problem is, the so-called lobbyists where british journalists.
There are fine videos on youtube (he actually speaks english, ahem, sort of) as well, try to spill not your coffee though.

When a person has certain power there will be others wanting to influence them, at some stage this could involve bribery and now we call it corruption.

In my view that chance is a little less in the EU system as there are so many parties, all with their own interests.
Parties as in members of the EU Commission and Members of the European Parliament.
The first is split up over 27 sovereign nations who all keep a very close eye on what their commissioner is doing.
The second is split over 754 MEP's representi

Ever heard of "Oil for Food"? My understanding is that while it is harder to lobby European politicians, it is trivially easy to outright bribe them with the only risk to the politician being if they fall out of favor with the powers that be and/or the establishment needs a scapegoat when some scandal blows up big enough to require the government "do something" to "address rampant corruption".

Our lobbyists guarantee they can train any politician in under a week at one of our exclusive clubs or yachts. And as a holiday bonus the first two family members of your politician will be accommodated and employed with you company for free.

should be a treasonable offense by public officials. String the state dept up, every single last one of them.

please check the definition of treason in the US:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Not bad but you failed in comprehension. The post on treason was not in regards to U.S. law but Europena Law. Thus the statement on treason was in reference to EU pols being strung up, which sure as hell would work in both the EU and the U.S.

To be fair, all Governments lobby on behalf of their domestic corporations - think of all the times that politicians from the ruling party in a country go to another country and negotiate trade agreements or highlight the products and services of their domestic companies to decision-making politicians of the host country.Heck, if politicians DID NOT do this, they would probably be accused of not doing their jobs when going abroad. Indeed, this is one of the more common roles of most diplomatic ambassadors.(As a case in point, and granted it is not about politicians but it is close enough, the British Royal yacht Britannia was funded by the British taxpayer. When a previous Government said they wanted to stop paying for Britannia, quite a few people in British industry objected because the Royal family often used the yacht as a lobbying tool for British businesses abroad).Certainly, when the lobbying goes beyond the "our companies offer wonderful services/products, and we can arrange tax breaks that are passed on as discounts" or "build your new manufacturing facility in my back yard, and get some very favorable terms" to "if you do not do it our way, then we will make life hard for you" then that, for me, is something the politicians and companies need to be called out on, but that is not lobbying, that is making threats.

To be fair, governments should not work for the corporations, they should work for the people who elected them.
Heck, if politicians always lobbied for corporations regardless of how harmful the result, they would be accused of not doing their jobs back home. Indeed, this is one of the increasingly common criticisms of elected officials.
Certainly, when companies and politicians engage in something for something exchanges, that, for me, needs to be called out as corruption and opposed. That is exactly what

... shouldn't be surprised to find that even with successful lobbying to get the EU's initiatives derailed, they'll suffer backlash from their European market. The cultures (yes, multiple) here, you see, are a tad different from what's accepted in USoA interstate commerce. So you can track your consumers' (because customers would have rights, whereas consumers can be, and so are, sold and bought like CDOs) every move and poke them with the most targeted adverts imaginable, down to while they're at the loo. And instead of phenomenal sales growth, you may just find they get sick of you and you start to lose against everyone who isn't quite that aggressive.

The USoA government, of course, has European governments well-cowed and will get the data anyway, but that too will, in the long run, bring more grief than joy. Not that anyone'll listen. If recent history teaches anything, it's that Americans[tm] are too full of themselves and their own petty politics (it's like that music, see? they've got gops AND dems 'round here) to listen to, nevermind respect, anyone else.

Of course, playing nice with others has never been America's strong suit, so why expect them to change now? Just ignore the buggers and hope they don't get a bug up their arses and invade you.

You know, I love bashing the US more so than the next guy, but I don't think that's fair. You have a point about power in general, yeah. It makes dumb people *really* dumb, and that sometimes reaches its zenith in the US, no doubt. But it's not cleanly divided up amongst nations, there are scumbags and great people everywhere. And not even the scumbags of the USA are worth forgetting about the brilliant minds and big hearts that country also harbours. I know this is kind of besides your point, and obvious k

You could try actually reading about the act to figure out what it applies to. The second result on Google is the act itself which states that the Data Protection Act applies to all organisations, with enumerated exemptions.

This is from the 1995 law that is under change proposal. Wording about who it applies to:From EUR-Lex [europa.eu]:

(d) 'controller' shall mean the natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or regulations, the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by national or Community law;(e) 'processor' shall mean a natural or legal person, public authority, agency or any other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller;

Facebook's not being business smart about this. If the people operating it had any sense, they'd take a page from Brave New World. Make people not care about their privacy enough to use this right; doing this is begging the Streisand Effect to kick in. As it is, a lot of people wouldn't care already.

Facebook is alreadly living proof of the fact that people don't care about their privacy.

Most people don't care about anything, unless and until it affects them personally.This is (in theory) why governments enact "nanny state" legislation; to prepare for, and protect its population from, bad things that those who will be affected haven't even considered yet.

Few people consider about the cost of hospitalisation after a car accident, until they're in one. Hence national health services.Few people consider the cost of leaving embarrassing photos on Facebook, until it comes up in a job interview. Hence this legislation.

That there is no single "Internet" from which to delete the data. We are talking about a network that contains billions of nodes, any one of which can cache the data, and may do so without even knowing that they are doing so. It's basically a public space.

I don't know where you got the impression that this was about a right to completely scrub oneself from every server on the internet with a magic button. It's about the right to tell a web site, to which you have previously provided information, that it must remove that information.

It's about the right to tell a web site, to which you have previously provided information, that it must remove that information.

Well, some people think it's the right to censor the web. I.e tell Google to forget everything you know about me, including the links to the news sites detailing how I stole money from people, etc... The right to be forgot isn't about deleting data from facebook, it's about erasing mistakes and shady backgrounds. I am pro-privacy, but anti-right-to-forgotten.

You are reading too much into this. It is about a single website having to delete your information. There are already existing laws preventing them from sharing the data. If you have made the information public already, then it is public, but a lot of private information provided to companies are not public.

In other news, some people are wrong. The right to be forgotten is the obligation, for providers of web services, to provide an option to delete you account and erase the personal information they have about you. No more no less.

Well, as I told you, it's not about doing the first thing at all, and never has been, and it is about obliging web sites to provide the second thing, and successfully follow through if they provide it.

Well, that's exactly the most important point in question. I mean, now, a US company, like Facebook for example, can say one day in their terms of service, that they keep all collected data private and never give it to anyone. Then, a week later, they can change the terms of service, and give it to everyone. Plus, you can't ever ask them to delete your account and associated collected data. If proper regulation would be in place so that they should comply with your del

I'm pretty sure that many of the billions of nodes are server or services owned and managed by a legal or natural person.

The law in EU intend to make possible for you to say to a specific legal or natural person to delete the data about you from their server or service. IANAL but I'm pretty sure in EU you own the data about you.

Once you own the data about you (as in EU) ask someone to delete it is nothing more that ask to return your possession to you. Of course if you received any service in exchange of pr

Yes, the same websites that we "others" all use to keep informed. Force that website to "forget" something, and you're taking away my right to be informed.

This is not about forcing people to take down information about you they have gathered and put up in pursuit of truth or justice or what have you. This is about forcing people to take down information about you that you have input to the site. It's a statement that personal information that you input still belongs to you. The laws regarding libel and free speech still vary from nation to nation.

I don't see the difference. Once you tell me something, it's not your information anymore, even if it's about you. The things that I know are my information.

You're conflating people and websites again, please stop or I will conclude that you have a learning disability that makes you incapable of reasoned debate. No one is forcing you to forget, only to remove information from a public resource. If you don't like it, you're free to not accept material from visitors, then you will have no housekeeping to do.

People naturally forget things unless we write them down. Writing down information to keep it for the future is at least as important as your imaginary right to be forgotten.

Also, there is no fundamental principle that "your" information belongs to you. Information is not something that can be owned. Period. On the other hand, the fundamental principles of free speech and free thought protect our rights to know, record, store, process, and communicate information, however we see fit, no matter what the s

Also, there is no fundamental principle that "your" information belongs to you. Information is not something that can be owned. Period. On the other hand, the fundamental principles of free speech and free thought protect our rights to know, record, store, process, and communicate information, however we see fit, no matter what the subject.

So you wouldn't have a problem with your medical, work and financial records being made available to everyone on the internet?

Funny, I thought you fundamentalist libertarians were in favour of privacy.

Your right to free speech does not include the right to do whatever you want. Freedom of speech is a socially agreed compromise, not one of the fucking Ten Commandmants handed down by God.

Companies are fighting against this "right" because:
1. It is completely impossible to implement.
2. The burden of attempting to implement is is onerous.
3. Shifting the liability from those who actually have and publish the information to those who only link to it is just wrong.
4. If the data is true, what legal "right" exists to remove it?
5. Existing laws and agreements covering defamation already exist for instances of false information.
6. In many cases, the information was created and/or released by

What I'd like to know is...how does this proposed law fit in with, and/or clash with the previous directive that web sites must hold this data for access by EU law enforcement agencies for a period of at least 6 months?

If this proposed law passes as has been explained here on Slashdot, wouldn't users then be given the ability to bypass the data holding period, by immediately requesting deletion after every use?

How would this burden web operators, who would then be caught between two laws that specify comple

The European Commission do indeed do lots of stupid things but I think anything aimed at giving users greater privacy and control over their personal information is a good thing.

The EC makes shit tons of good stuff that you never hear about. A lot more than bad stuff, in fact.

The EC's biggest problem stems from EU governments that actively lobby it to pass regulations and directives on unpopular topics. Local politicians seldom mention that their great new reform is a mere transcription into local law of an EU directive (aka something they're obligated to do). In contrast, they'll sure as hell blame EU technocrats (which, incidentally, they named) for coming up with directives that force them to pass much needed yet highly unpopular reforms.

A case in point is the recent lashing out at the EU over deficit reduction. No politician gets elected in the EU by promising to axe the public sector, axe entitlement programs, raise taxes, and so on. The EU stability pact, in this light, is a blessing: they get to do all that with a convenient scapegoat. Hollande's position on it during the French presidential campaign, in this regard, was exemplary of EU demagoguery. He posed for voters, promising that he'd renegotiate the pact. Upon being elected, he quacked around for a few weeks, in an effort to disguise his pig of a bluff into a not-too-ugly princess. And, now, he can now freely blame his predecessor and the EU to pass the highly unpopular reforms that he knew were much needed from the start. (Whether he actually does remains an open question, but I'd opine that he has little choice.)

So: more sticking it to the working class and the poor rather than the rich and the banks who actually caused the financial problems in the first place....

I suspect that former French Prime Minister Michel Rocard gave the correct outline in an interview to Libération on the economic situation in Europe during the campaign. In essence, he then suggested that taxes would get raised regardless of who was in charge; the only real question was who would foot the bill. Time will tell if he was right, but I'd wager that he was and that this applies to most other countries with deficit problems.

I'll give you one for free: the original video of "Science: It's a girl thing!"

The execution was laughable, but that's actually a good idea imho -- IT departments could use more chicks. Plus, the laughable execution made it get more attention that it may have had otherwise, meaning that they may have gotten the message through regardless.

List a few of those stupid rules, that haven't been made up by bonkers Little England newspapers.

You cannot. Because they do not exist. "Welcome breath of fresh air"? Er no, the Commission has the strange idea that citizens deserve to have their rights protected more than corporations deserve the freedom to take them away. That is why the UK neocons want out of the EU: it stands up for ordinary people.

It's sad but true. Much of the developed world operates under the radical assumption that human rights are more important than the unrestricted pursuit of capital by corporations. It appears to be a cultural defect we inherited from the British Empire.

Well said, the point that betrays this fact is that any time you hear the likes of UKIP or the Tory party's furthest right elements talking about getting out of the EU, or pulling powers back the absolute first example they cite is the 48hr working limit opt-out.

This benefits absolutely no one except exploitative corporations - because it's an opt-out workers are freely able to work more than 48hrs a week if they choose to, it just stops employers forcing people to work more than 48hrs a week on average if

I was listening to Nigel Farage on Sunday Politics the other week and his economic plan is simply scary as hell. Effectively he accepts that pulling out of the EU will cost us trade and cause billions in lost income to are economy, but the way he believes we'll make this up is by the reduction in red tape allowing companies to increase output. In other words, he imagines the UK becoming a country where workers are forced to become sweatshop workers that are made to work long hours for extremely low wages and that this will somehow create a massive increase in industrial output to match the massive loss in sales to Europe.

Well, if the UK is truly that far gone due to the nefarious workings of the EU, you might as well bite the bullet before withdrawing from the EU means roots and grubs.

Personally, I can't help but think that there's a happy medium where you have access to the EU's market, but not the bullshit that comes with full EU membership. Friends with benefits. Switzerland and Norway probably have figured that out and maybe the UK ought to study that.

My view is that while Nigel Farage is probably one of the best political options out there for the UK

Then you are an idiot, who knows nothing about UK politics. He is an extreme right wing, xenophobic, racist, anti-progressive chimp of a fuckwit, without even the intelligence of Enoch Powell or the charisma of Oswald Mosley. I'm sure he goes down well in the US.

there's too many Brits either afraid of "sweat shops", "long hours", and all that 19th century crap

You say that like it's a bad thing. Britain fought WW2 to defeat the Nazis, who are just the intellectual predecessors to UKIP, and make a land fit for heroes, which means everyone, not just the rich bastards at the top. Despite a start on genuin

The EU already resents Switzerland's status. No way it'd let the UK have a similar deal.

I was thinking more that the UK takes that deal rather than the EU gives it. See how that works?

If the US wants to "compete" by becoming a sweatshop economy, we Europeans can't stop you. But we don't have to go the same way.

I doubt it'll happen in the US either. We have people drizzling down their legs at the thought of eight year olds working ten hour days merely because some crusty politician tried a minor fix, like delaying a minimum wage increase for a few years or making environmental regulation more sensible.

There will come a point where "roots and grubs" will sound like a good deal, provided it's accompanied by reasonable working hours, healthcare, retirement and unemployment benefits.

Go give it a try. It'll be an object lesson to anyone else who thinks you can do that.

We have people drizzling down their legs at the thought of eight year olds working ten hour days

Yes, but people like you don't actually see anything wrong with that, do you? You're just pissed off that not everyone is as rabidly fgree market and reactionary as you, and that there is a general feeling even in the US that some things are unacceptable in the name of making more money for rich captialists.

Yes, but people like you don't actually see anything wrong with that, do you? You're just pissed off that not everyone is as rabidly fgree market and reactionary as you, and that there is a general feeling even in the US that some things are unacceptable in the name of making more money for rich captialists.

I do see something wrong with child labor at that level (and implied risk), but not with child labor itself. But it hasn't been an issue since 1940 in the US. So unless a lot of people want to return to those days, which I just don't see happening, then what is the point of the fear?

Instead I see a different problem today. People who somehow are grown up, but with little experience of work and how to do it (and sometimes with an unenviable combination of little work experience and staggering debts). One

On the contrary, I see lots of people wanting to return to the "good old days", and by that they usually mean the Gilded Age (prior to 1940). Lots of talk about bringing the country back to the way the Constitution described it and appealing to the Founding Fathers (so they might even want to go back to 300 years ago)

Just because someone wants to bring back some of what worked really well, doesn't mean that they want to bring the parts that were terrible. Why cower over obsolete fears? Makes me wonder who the real conservatives are here.

It's mostly the left who wants to bring people back to post 1940, but with it they want to bring back all the socialism and taxes and kids-going-to-college-and-not-working. So it's neither here nor there.

Just because it's more recent, doesn't mean it's better. For example, the US is in decline despite the left getting most of what they wanted. The weakest links in the EU and the US are similarly failing hard despite being pretty much what the left ordered.

It's not obsolete fear. It's real. Story from yesterday, the Republicans who talks big about sticking to the Constitution, fired a guy for pointing out how far removed current copyright laws are from the Constitution.

What does that have to do with child labor again? It's also worth noting that IP laws were a lot less overbearing back then than they are now. You saw some of the same games, such as patent trolling, but they couldn't go as far back then.

Didn't say it's better. I'm pointing out that those who claim to want to "bring things back to the way they were" (and there's a lot of them) aren't just going to bring the good and leave the bad, even if it's unintentional (but I doubt that's usually the case)

It's an opinion not a point.

One doesn't need to make eight year olds work hard to get a society that isn't falling apart.

Well then you'll need to provide some evidence, but so far it looks to me you've been painting the opposite picture

I already did that. I can link to it, if you have trouble finding it.

You say the problem (of child labor) is gone since 1940, and you say the US is in decline despite the left getting what they want.

Well, the left has been getting what they want for longer than since 1940 in the US (i.e social security was established in 1935, Federal Reserve 1913, the law that eventually broke up Standard Oil was written in 1890, personal income tax was introduced in 1861...)

The further you go back, the less leftist movements there are, but then you see more instances of child labor, be it working in the factories in the Industrial Revolution, or helping on the farm prior to industrialization, or simply working in an "adult's" job, because back in the day it's more acceptable for young people to work (as you're considered an adult at an earlier age)

So what? Are you claiming that if we abandon some parts of current leftist ideology, somehow child labor will come back?

I feel your pain, but I can also see a few benefits in that piece of regulation.

For instance, less kids would injure or kill themselves on tuned up 50cc bikes. Doing so is now illegal where I spent my youth, but back then a guy I know lost his foot at age 15; his bike went twice as fast as it originally could. A fucking life wasted to gain a few minutes per day...

The same could be said for young adults who have the lunacy of tuning their 250cc bike so it goes even faster than it already does (which is alrea

Which is kind of important. It seems self evident to me that if you have a class of motorcycle limited by power output, then you shouldn't be able to increase its power. Get an unlimited licence instead, when you are entitled to.

Here in the UK, there is a limit of 33bhp for 2 years after passing your test (if you're under 21, otherwise you can go straight to an unlimited power bike). Whether you agree with it or not, the fact is that you have to stick to that limit and you shouldn't be able to easily t

Even here in our corrupt little corner of Europe, multiple governmental projects (like CCTVs) have been struck down by our National Commission for Data Protection, and the Data Protection Act covers police forces as well.

But even if it only applied to businesses, it'd still be much better than the status quo in almost anywhere else.

Lobbying is sooo 20th century in the USA. Why bother with uncertain lobbying when unlimited private and corporate fundings allows you to buy politicians even before they are elected?

Democracy is dead in the USA. The SCOTUS killed it. But apparently few noticed.

Welcome to your new, offical plutocracy, US "citizens". As a French citizen, I'll mourn your humanist values, which were so close to ours. Our republic is your's little sister. They had fights, like all siblings, but ultimately had more in common than